Each issue of The Brief, the Section's quarterly magazine, includes an array of practical articles of interest to plaintiffs' and defense lawyers who practice tort or insurance law. In addition, the popular "Practice TIPS" section provides practical, how-to advice on practice and litigation matters.

Members receive The Brief as part of their membership in the Tort Trial & insurance Practice Section. To find out more about membership and it's benefits, please Click Here!!!

Non members can subscribe for $50.00 per year, $60 foreign. Single copies are $12.00. To subscribe, complete the online order form, or call the ABA Order Fulfillment Department at 800/285-2221.

" You, the Jury, and the Internet "By Jeffrey T. FrederickThe increasingly prominent role of the Internet poses a potential threat to the integrity of jury trials, both before and during litigation. This results from jurors’ information searches, Web contact with litigants’ advocates, and blogging or e-mailing comments about their courtroom experiences. On the other hand, the Internet gives attorneys unprecedented access to information about potential jurors, from public records to social Web sites and Internet postings by the jurors themselves. One jury expert addresses the dangers of jurors’ easy access to outside information and offers recommendations to minimize the pitfalls and maximize the benefits of the Internet in the jury context.

" The Assignment Clause in First-Party Property Insurance Policies: Are Postloss Assignments of Policy Proceeds Enforceable? "By Catherine M. Colinvaux and Kristen Suga HeresInsurers often choose to protect themselves from increased risk by limiting an insured’s ability to assign policy coverage rights to another person or entity. Despite policy language that requires insurer consent for assignments, many courts have held that antiassignment provisions cannot prevent an insured from assigning insurance proceeds after a loss has already occurred. Two insurance coverage experts explore the increasing willingness of courts to distinguish, however, between accrued and unaccrued claims and to bar the assignment of unaccrued claims—to keep third parties from collecting for losses that are not fixed.

" Injunctive Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): Recent Industrial Life Litigation Sheds More Light"Jeffrey M. GranthamFRCP Rule 23(b)(2) was promulgated as a tool for plaintiffs in civil rights cases to obtain injunctive relief, employed primarily by persons claiming discriminatory conduct in an employment context. However, to overcome individualized issue hurdles in Rule 23(b)(3) class actions for monetary damages, plaintiffs lawyers began pushing claims formerly brought under Rule 23(b)(3) into the Rule 23(b)(2) arena. One lawyer specializing in complex insurance claims asserts that Rule 23(b)(2) claims should focus on stopping harm to a class rather than a particular individual. He surveys recent life insurance cases to demonstrate that courts have been reluctant to allow plaintiffs to recast monetary claims as equitable relief in order to “bootstrap” their claims under Rule 23(b)(2).

" Hybrid Class Actions: Bridging the Gap between the Process Due and the Process that Functions "William H. Narwold and Mathew P. JasinskiEmbracing the notion that a defendant’s conduct might warrant both injunctive relief under FRCP Rule 23(b)(2) and an award of damages under Rule 23(b)(3), courts are increasingly willing to certify “hybrid” classes, according to two lawyers specializing in consumer fraud litigation. They contend that hybrid class actions seek to compensate class members for collective and individual harm and suggest this hybrid allows courts to better construct remedies that satisfy common and individual needs of class members while protecting important constitutional rights.

" How Do Courts Calculate Attorney Fee Awards? "Brooks Magratten, Robert D. Phillips Jr., Thomas Connolly, Renee Feldman and Issac MamayskyWhen a successful litigant is allowed by case law, contract, or statute to obtain attorney fees from the losing party, courts decide on an amount by employing the lodestar method, the predominant basis for determining attorney fee awards. This article examines case law on fee awards and principles of the lodestar method, under which courts multiply the hours an attorney works by the attorney’s hourly rate and adjust that amount up or down depending on the characteristics of a given case.

TIPS LEGAL DISCLAIMER --The materials at this site, including the links to other Web sites, have been provided by the Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section of the American Bar Association for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice, the practice of law, or the endorsement of the content provided by any linked site. Use of this site does not create or constitute, in any way, an attorney-client relationship between the ABA, TIPS, their entities, or any individual members and the viewer of this site. Neither does the ABA, TIPS, their entities, nor any of their members assume any responsibility for any misinterpretation or misapplication of the information contained on this site by the viewer, or of the content of any Web sites linked to this site. Points of view or opinions at this site do not necessarily represent the official policies or positions of the ABA, TIPS, or any of its entities or members. Users of this site should not act upon any information received without seeking the advice of professional legal counsel